Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage v Robert Bosch Doo Beograd (CFI, 23 December 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

Seised by Valeo Systèmes d’Essuyage of an action for infringement of EP 2 671 766 against six Bosch group companies (UPC_CFI_809/2025), the Paris Central Division upholds the preliminary objection of four of them, which are established in Contracting Member States. It declines jurisdiction, refers the action to the Düsseldorf Local Division and sets English as the language of the proceedings. Including defendants established in Serbia and China does not give the Central Division jurisdiction where other defendants are domiciled in a Contracting Member State.

Question

Does the third subparagraph of Art. 33(1) UPCA, which opens the Central Division where the defendant is domiciled outside the Contracting Member States, apply where only some of the defendants are in that position?

Decision

The provision covers only defendants all domiciled outside the Contracting Member States, and the English text does not support Valeo’s reading (paragraphs 17 to 19). The rule on multiple defendants concerns point (b) only (paragraph 21), and the scheme of Art. 33 rests on proximity to the dispute and the defendant’s language (paragraphs 22 to 24). Where one defendant is domiciled in a Contracting Member State, the local division competent under Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA prevails over the Central Division (paragraphs 25 and 26). Valeo’s subsidiary request having been made within the fourteen-day period of Rule 19.5 RoP, the action is referred to Düsseldorf, Robert Bosch GmbH being the German parent company and the claims concerning the same alleged infringement (paragraphs 27 to 29). English becomes the language of the proceedings (paragraph 30). The request to reject the action, which falls under Rule 361 RoP, is not decided (paragraph 31). Leave to appeal is granted (paragraph 33).

Key points for practice

• Joining a group subsidiary established outside the EU alongside European group companies does not allow the claimant to choose the Central Division (paragraphs 25 and 26).
• A claimant expecting a jurisdictional objection should designate, in the alternative, a local division and a language within the Rule 19.5 RoP period (paragraphs 27 to 30).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 32(1), 33(1) and 49(1) and (2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 19, 21.1, 220, 303.1 and 361

Case law cited

Paris Local Division, 11 April 2024, UPC_CFI_495/2023, Munich Local Division, 20 June 2025, UPC_CFI_149/2024.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.